UK’s Ofcom (Office of Communications) regulator is on a roll: not only has it just started to enforce the controversial Online Safety Act, but is set to, in 2025, continue its chairmanship over the Global Online Safety Regulators Network, for a second year.
The network set up two years ago, gathers 25 members and observers, “online safety” regulators (some might say, “chief censors”). Earlier in the month it published its first-ever annual report, as well as a strategic plan spanning 2025-27.
Together, these two documents outline the group’s priorities, and they focus on working to expand global online censorship by aligning the participant’s rules (“building regulatory coherence across jurisdictions” is how they phrase it) as well as cooperating on enforcement and information sharing.
The members include Ofcom, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, and regulators of a similar profile from Fiji, France, Ireland, South Korea, Slovakia, South Africa, and the Netherlands. A number of US-based groups, as well as those from the UK Canada, and several other countries, are observers in the organization.
They have met the criteria that include already having “online safety” legislation, but then also much more vague and difficult-to-prove things like “independence from political and commercial interference,” and “commitment” to the rule of law, democracy, and human rights.
The network breaks down its priorities as “thematic,” one of which is the aforementioned “coherence” (some might say, “collusion”) that crosses jurisdictions and borders in terms of regulation.
But regulation too often effectively pertains to legally cementing online censorship.
The next “theme” is setting the groundwork for future regulation, and to achieve this, the network’s members want to work on “the evidence base of online safety.”
The whole idea of “online safety” and enforcement of various rules – and not just the “evidence base” that Ofcom mentions in a press release – is “nascent.” With this in mind, the search for an “evidence base” would provide regulators with justification for future policies.
Last but not least, information sharing is cited as the third “thematic priority.”
“From the beginning of the network, regulators have found the ability to share informally as one of the most valuable parts of our work,” the press release said.
Having more of this capacity is particularly important if those comprising the group decide they have to deal with “cross-border harm” or detect that a platform has been engaged in “systemic non-compliance.”
